|
walgreenslatino posted:In a complete and utter shock, the deal is almost exactly what was leaked months ago. But remember, it was wrong to come to a conclusion based on a preliminary leak. Not sure about your first part, but your second part is indeed correct, yes.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:In a complete and utter shock, the deal is almost exactly what was leaked months ago. Doesn't sound like it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:In a complete and utter shock, the deal is almost exactly what was leaked months ago. I see you haven't read it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
No poo poo its 6000 pages and it was released 24 hours ago The provisions for extending worker protections to member nations, liberalizing international trade, and extending copyright laws are extremely similar to what was leaked. ISPs are compelled to fight for the copyright protection of foreign holders. It includes the same provisions for investor-state dispute settlement. Member nations have to agree to extended patent protections for medicine, like was claimed. There is no mention of climate change provisions, or provisions agains currency manipulation. Is this not what was expected?? The only thing that was a surprise, that I've seen, was a rule that prohibits nations from inspecting the source code of software companies seeking to export their products
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I see you haven't read it. No, he's right. It looks very much like the text leaked in October 2015. Not necessarily any of the earlier leaks, but the leak of final text from a month ago seems more or less accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Let me sum up this post: 1st para: Hostile yet smug admission that the document hasn't been read 2nd para: Details things wrong with said unread document 3rd para: mentions the "only" surprise that he's seen in a document previously stated as unseen. A good post IMO
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, he's right. It looks very much like the text leaked in October 2015. October ain't months ago, and the "leaks" in October were official, including matching the japanese "summary" release walgreenslatino posted:Member nations have to agree to extended patent protections for medicine, Cite this. All I've seen is an agreement on increasing permitted data exclusivity on medicines that still stops well short of the patent term and thus does not meaningfully make generic medications take longer to be available after the patent term's up. walgreenslatino posted:extending copyright laws The horror of having the same copyright terms as Europe!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:ISPs are compelled to fight for the copyright protection of foreign holders. No. They're given safe harbor from liability for infringement if they participate in a notice and takedown system (or a couple of existing systems that are explicitly grandfathered in.). They can choose not to participate but may be liable if they do so. quote:It includes the same provisions for investor-state dispute settlement. The same provisions as are in many other trade deals and which are massively overblown as to what their impacts are? quote:Member nations have to agree to extended patent protections for medicine, like was claimed. Completely incorrect. There is no patent term extension for medicine. There's a data exclusivity provision, which protects clinical research, but patent term is unmodified. quote:There is no mention of climate change provisions, The words "climate change" do not appear. The words "low emission economy", on the other hand, do. They're not particularly strong, but the lack of a shibboleth doesn't mean there's no mention of climate change provisions. quote:or provisions agains currency manipulation. That's true. The TPP doesn't address currency manipulation. That's because there was a separate agreement specifically dealing with currency manipulation made amongst the TPP accessors. It's an international trade deal. It's not perfect but it's not the end of the world scenario people make it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Guys chill out I don't think the sky is falling. I think there are good and bad things but it's ok to be critical of parts of this without being a raving lunatic I did not physically read a 6,000 page document, I kept up with and closely followed news which discussed and addressed the positions outlined in the leak, and now I am keeping up with articles which address the full text now released. I don't think you or I should have to physically read an entire international trade document to come to conclusions on it, that's why we have a free and diverse press. edit: I am a total idiot, glad that's settled walgreenslatino fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
I don't think any reasonable person does, but you didn't exactly come out saying that did you? You took the maverick approach of stating it's exactly as bad as previously discussed while admitting it's been an extremely short time for such a large document. The reasonable person might assume that substantive articles and expert opinion might take a week or longer to really digest, while the unreasonable person races to post initial impressions of a complex deal. E: S'all good, baby! Boon fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
People seem to forget that trustworthy folks like Senator Warren had access to the various drafts and also raised concerns, so maybe taking a giant poo poo on people who showed concern before the final public release was also a bit ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Boon posted:I don't think any reasonable person does, but you didn't exactly come out saying that did you? Obama won't get his treaty. Really hope this clears things up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Welp, close the thread E: well, I see BOTH poo poo posters (^ V) have been probated for poo poo posting, although not here. Boon fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Boon posted:I don't think any reasonable person does, but you didn't exactly come out saying that did you? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Obama won't get his treaty. Really hope this clears things up. Uhh with fast track it's almost definitely going to be passed. Obama's most difficult fight wrt TPP was back in May. Based on what I've seen the deal in its full form is hardly the sloppy corporate blowjob that the detractors claimed it would be, although that wasn't really hard considering its detractors were being literally apocalyptic about the whole thing for the past couple years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:People seem to forget that trustworthy folks like Senator Warren had access to the various drafts and also raised concerns, so maybe taking a giant poo poo on people who showed concern before the final public release was also a bit ridiculous. Senator Warren (who I voted for) said a bunch of stupid poo poo about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
New Chris Hedges piece about the TPP
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
In case you don't want to read it it says "I don't like trade, corporations or capitalism and could have written this piece before the TPP came into existence".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
How is it possible to write an article about something and not cite anything from the very same something you're writing about? The article opens with a Ralph Nader opinion and then launches into conjecture and continues that way throughout the first page until it hitsthe CEPR statistic on page 2 about 2/3 of the way in. I don't think this article is approaching this in any sort of objective manner...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Senator Warren (who I voted for) said a bunch of stupid poo poo about it. I don't think you're qualified to judge others of stupidity. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I don't think you're qualified to judge others of stupidity. So "Senator Warren didn't like it" was your whole argument then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So "Senator Warren didn't like it" was your whole argument then. Nope, try again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Senator Warren, a trusted and credible source, was able to track on TTP development and expressed concerns. Now, like most things, I would like to see her concerns validated, disputed, and just generally peer reviewed before I advocate a position. Undoubtedly, there will be good and bad and it will be a matter of where I think priorities should lie. This is how I think TTP should be approached, there is certainly no rush
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Boon posted:Senator Warren, a trusted and credible source, was able to track on TTP development and expressed concerns. Just the impending vote to authorize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Just the impending vote to authorize. Right, though impending meaning the yet declared 90 day requirement before it comes to a Congressional vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Wouldn't this have a massively negative impact on the manga and anime industries based on the impliciations of a copyright police state? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wouldn't this have a massively negative impact on the manga and anime industries based on the impliciations of a copyright police state? We should be so lucky. E: oh wait you were serious. No, it won't, because that's not part of the treaty requirements. Japan is cracking down on manga and anime copyright violators all on their own already, but the treaty provisions essentially allow Japan to maintain their existing schemes for fair use type concepts and for notice and independent verification for takedowns. Practically speaking, copyright regimes in the US and Japan aren't going to change much, if at all, based on TPP. Kalman fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Then I suppose the anime's future rests in the hands of whoever replaces that Shinzo Abe gently caress who could use some harakiri.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
scanlation and streaming sites are already illegal in the US as afaik are only taken down when the japanese companies bother to request it. that shouldn't change anything, so your waifus are safe. for now
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:scanlation and streaming sites are already illegal in the US as afaik are only taken down when the japanese companies bother to request it. that shouldn't change anything, so your waifus are safe. for now The gigantic doujinshi market is a far more salient topic though, since it's actually the livelihood of a great number of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:The gigantic doujinshi market is a far more salient topic though, since it's actually the livelihood of a great number of people. Since the major media owners don't tend to shut down things like Star Wars fan movies and those people at comic cons who sell their own original comics using DC and Marvel characters, I don't see any reason to worry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
So the full text has been out for a while and nobody's mind has been changed in either direction. So this will probably pass then huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
NeilPerry posted:The gigantic doujinshi market is a far more salient topic though, since it's actually the livelihood of a great number of people. Native Japanese doujin stuff is tolerated by Japanese publishers to a much greater degree than non-Japanese fan stuff, in part because the doujin stuff provides the legitimate publishers with a stream of material and creators and non-Japanese stuff doesn't. In any case the TPP won't change enforcement of copyright law either in the US or Japan so there's no reason that would change icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So the full text has been out for a while and nobody's mind has been changed in either direction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Not if either Clinton or Sanders wins the election next year. Or if Wikipedia tries a blackout. Why would wikipedia blackout over the TPP? And Clinton won't kill the TPP if she wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Not if either Clinton or Sanders wins the election next year. Or if Wikipedia tries a blackout. The TPP isn't going to need to wait til 2017 to be passed dude. Also why the gently caress would wikipedia try a "blackout" over it? Could you explain what you think is in it that Wikipedia would hate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Not if either Clinton or Sanders wins the election next year. Or if Wikipedia tries a blackout. Oh no, the Wikimedia foundation might miss their annual scam drive
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The TPP isn't going to need to wait til 2017 to be passed dude. Also why the gently caress would wikipedia try a "blackout" over it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
There are no heightened restrictions for anyone in a developed nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
computer parts posted:There are no heightened restrictions for anyone in a developed nation. It's kind of creepy how TPP proponents are only concerned with what impacts the US in the bill. Status update: making the rest of the world as corporate-friendly as america is not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:36
|
|
